Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of us have had pay frozen for more than 2 years.

Many have insurance premiums rising over 25% annually.

I can be terminated anytime.

Did I mention I can’t strike?:rolleyes:
Even if your non-union you have a right to strike if you are unhappy with your wages and conditions of employment; of course your employer has a legal right to terminate your employment as well unless two or more of you decide to strike, then its concerted activity and your protected under labor law.
 
Thought this was a good read.

Unions Flexing Their Muscles is Nothing New

foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/02/22/unions-flexing-muscles-new/

From the article:
While there are concerns among them that this anti-union feeling is spreading beyond Wisconsin into places like Ohio, Indiana and California, but as Steve Malanga points out in today’s Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin is not ground zero in the fight against public-sector union power.
Unions have been flexing their muscles across the country for years.
Let’s look to Oregon in 2010: the SEIU and the Oregon Education Association spend nearly $3 million to pass tax-raising ballot measures. Ballot measures 66 and 67 raised taxes on Oregonians by $727 million annually.
In Arizona, the sales tax was raised by 1% thanks to lobbying by public safety and teachers unions.
In California back in 2004 the same groups spent nearly $5 million of their dues on a campaign to raise income taxes on those making more than $1 million.
Recently in New York - as the recession was taking hold – then-Governor Paterson tried to make cuts to balance the state’s budget, but the unions were having none of it. The New York State United Teacher’s Union spent close to a million bucks to stop a proposed cap on property taxes.
 
At the end of WWII the United States came out of the war with all of its heavy industry intact. Great Britain, Germany and Japan were in shambles and needed to be rebuilt and the United States was there to provide the materials for the rebuilding efforts. Also, in the United States people were ready to get back to building and expanding projects that had essentially been on hold for the last ten years.

The American steel industry was built around blast furnaces, a technology that by the 1940s was already 40 years old. Without any competition the steel industry could name its price and get it. They made money hand over fist and by pricing themselves they could afford to cover all the inefficiencies in their manufacturing process.

By the end of the 40s Germany and Japan were recovering and their heavy industry was being rebuilt from the ground up. The German and Japanese steel industries chose to go with a new technology called a basic oxygen furnace. These furnaces could produce as much steel and as high of quality as the blast furnaces but with fewer men and in a shorter amount of time. Soon these countries were producing steel that even with shipping it over seas was still cheaper than American steel.

The problems were long in coming, but they couldn’t be staved off. America relied on outdated and inefficient technology. Their costs were too high to cut back to make any real difference in the competition with Germany, Japan and eventually South Korea.

Does that help?

ChadS
Thank you for explaining your position.
 
That’s some good news, you should be contributing and you shouldn’t be allowed to strike on the taxpayer dime.

If the schools/state save money on salaries/benefits the classrooms will get smaller?
I have a bargaining right, give me a raise or I quit. I love it.
We take a more realistic approach to education down here. We don’t focus on Chinese test scores and many kids graduate to continue on in farming and raising animals. So we tend to focus heavily on those areas as there are many jobs in that sector here. I could prove you wrong all day long with this people in the south are dumber insult, but I don’t feel like wasting much more of my time on another complaining government worker.

What? It’s still like that down here, we love it that way. :rolleyes:

Disgusting to see people contributing to the only major pro-life party in the US isn’t it?
Gee. I thought I stated that I don’t have bargaining rights as a GS (General Schedule) employee.🤷

The classrooms will be more or less as full as the governor says they will.:cool:

Totally out of context. Not knowing anything about government employees, I certainly expected that.

I grew up in the Northeast up until the 11th grade. I graduated high school in SC. I had 3 classes all day long, the remainder were study halls. Why? Because I was short 1 credit to graduate in the south and 4 short had I stayed in MA. Their “senior” english and grammar book was the exact same book I had in my “junior” year in MA. Farming? Oh yeah and let’s not forget the $$$$ in the form of government subsidies for “not” growing crops. How many of your ag friends would give those up? yeah, thought so 😉

Gee, I wonder why it isn’t that way anymore? Other than the explotation of cheap illegal farm labor…:rolleyes:

Nice segway into abortion…which has NOTHING to do with this topic. Geez louise.

And you forgot the close relationship the Church has with organized labor. Lot’s of $$$ goes into the Church coffers via union employees. 😉 What would happy if the Kennedy’s (as if) left the Church? yeah, thought so.
 
Maybe so for some. But I think collective bargaining should be limited to those who produce, and those who continue to produce by limiting union membership to those who meet a criteria of results.

As for me, and many others. Leave the “bargaining” to me. I’ve had to threaten boss’s before in many different ways, don’t think I wont do it again.
Actually for quite some. A whopping 61% of Americans oppose laws taking away collective bargaining! Just think 61% even surpasses the super majority required to get anything done in the US Senate. And even from a poll not conducted by the Wisconson Education Association.

And perhaps vocal opponents here. But only a mere 33% minority of Americans favor taking away collective bargaining.

Evidence to those who think Obama misread his mandate and overstepped following the 2008 election that the GOP is already beginning to misread and overstep theirs!

usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm
 
You must have watched a different Oreily that I did. The numbers he showed proved his point. The solution is that the Legislature will pass a law requiring them to pay a small amunt on their pensions and health care while leaving collective bargaining on wages intact.
Pensions and health care are substitutes for wages. Cutting them is cutting wages.

Here’s the link to O’ Reilly’s memoClick me and the breakdown I came up with based on his numbers:

O’ Reilly says:

Public Worker Salary= 48K a year
Public Worker Pension= 1, 718 a month (20,616 a year)

Private Worker Salary: 70K a year
Private Worker Pension: 1, 307 (15,684 a year)

It all depends on how you figure it. If both workers work for 40 years and then retire making those salaries, it’s pretty obvious that the private worker made a lot (well 30% more or so) more money than the public worker.

Public Worker: 48K multiplied by 40= 1, 920, 000
Private Worker: 70K multiplied by 40= $2,800,000

Quite a bit more. The only way the public worker eats into that lead is through that $5,000 a year difference in pension money, which he can only collect when he is retired. If his retirement is absurdly lengthy (as is the case in parts of California where some people are reported to have been retired for 50 years and have 100K pensions), he can make up the difference over several decades. If he retires and dies 10 years later, he didn’t even come close to evening things out. That’s the scam with pensions and social security; they only work if most people die soon enough. That’s why they should have never been instituted, but that’s another thread about progressives and control.

So, no, O’Reilly’s own numbers prove that private workers still make quite a bit more than public workers; therefore the solution is for the governor to accept the budget cuts and solve the budget without union busting. Health care and pensions are forms of “wages”. If they need cutting because the state was irresponsible or an emergency came up, then the unions seem willing to do it.

I know unions have become corrupt; I don’t think they have the right to force people to join them. But there has to be a line drawn for workers, and ceding the governor and the legislature this kind of power is a throwback to the days of Rockefeller buying politicians and baseball bat thugs bashing workers who wanted more than 5 cents a day. No thanks.

And remember that it’s okay that public workers make less than private workers because job security is supposed to account for the pay differential.
 
Thought this was a good read.

Unions Flexing Their Muscles is Nothing New

foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/02/22/unions-flexing-muscles-new/

From the article:
Ya,unless you are looking for the truth…

$12.5 million was spent on the yes and no campaigns of Measures 66 and 67…according to foxbusiness “Let’s look to Oregon in 2010: the SEIU and the Oregon Education Association spend nearly $3 million to pass tax-raising ballot measures. Ballot measures 66 and 67 raised taxes on Oregonians by $727 million annually.” So both the yes and no campaigns together put up 9.5 million. Ya…it was the unions…:rolleyes:

Oh…and no one is going to put out that the minimum business tax had not been raised since…are you ready…since the GREAT DEPRESSION…
 
Then I will agree with you that this is an hypocricy and more political than substantial.
I’m not so sure, from what I’ve heard there are many unions that represent the firefighters and police in the state and he was only supported by 4. It makes sense though, the protection of the people come first and if half the cops and firefighters took the day off to protest it could have gotten ugly.
 
Actually for quite some. A whopping 61% of Americans oppose laws taking away collective bargaining! Just think 61% even surpasses the super majority required to get anything done in the US Senate. And even from a poll not conducted by the Wisconson Education Association.
Again, the only poll that matters is the one at the polls. The teachers lost. This happens when unions gamble in politics. I just said that I agree that this move is polical, but this should serve as a cautionary tale to unions that gamble by backing a political candidate. If you win, you may get goodies, but if you lose, you may lose goodies.

This is not just a matter of whether people generally back collective bargaining, or teachers or unions, but specifically whether are willing to pay higher taxes for these things.
 
As for the comment about unions contributing to the Democratic party/campaign. I will say yes they have, just as much as the Christian Right (the evang/fundy type) has contributed to the Republican party/campaign.
They have the legal right, but may not have the moral right. If the opponent is also pro-abortion, then there is no moral right to support such a person, and people of faith may not be willing to pay union dues to support such evils. So while it may look good to support a pro-union candidate, it might also be foolish if it results in a loss of solidarity. Also, like this case shows, you can also face political retribution if you lose.
 
They have the legal right, but may not have the moral right. If the opponent is also pro-abortion, then there is no moral right to support such a person, and people of faith may not be willing to pay union dues to support such evils. So while it may look good to support a pro-union candidate, it might also be foolish if it results in a loss of solidarity. Also, like this case shows, you can also face political retribution if you lose.
“My biggest problem with modernity may lie in the growing separation of the ethical and the legal.” -Nassim NicholasTaleb
 
so when did usa start using oxygen furnace?Did they have to discover it on their own?
 
eliminating collective bargaining is just a very small part of getting the budget undercontrol,I know its said that well every little bit helps but the spending is not what cost us to get in this mess.unless you want to add the cost of two wars(Iraq was 1 billion dollars a day)You can debate the issue that the us has been overspending for years on thousands of programs(called investing in the future)and you might have a point.IMO ones has to ask how long is it going to be before these investments pay off?It makes no sense to invest but we go bankrupt in the process.the only just thing to do (IMO)is to make the highest wage earners pay more.If thats sounds injust do you really beleive that people who make say billions a year do it 100% honestly?By law they may haventbroken any laws but Im saying morally honest…
 
have you been watching alot of the debate?The unions agreed to that but the republicans turned if down.
 
Again, the only poll that matters is the one at the polls. The teachers lost. This happens when unions gamble in politics. I just said that I agree that this move is polical, but this should serve as a cautionary tale to unions that gamble by backing a political candidate. If you win, you may get goodies, but if you lose, you may lose goodies.
You make it sound that supporting a candidate, even the losing one, gives the winner license to exact retribution upon his opponents. Would you be singing the same tune if say a union backed candidate got into office and then proceeded to strip all companies that didn’t give him money their charter to operate in the state or seized and confiscated their assets? That would be an injustice, just like it’s an injustice to treat the teachers the way they are being treated now.

ChadS
 
the problem is then they would be paying private and public education
 
so when did usa start using oxygen furnace?Did they have to discover it on their own?
If I remember correctly America was a pretty late adopter of the technology. After the oxygen furnaces were invented there were some places where they were installed – they were cheaper to operate, took up less room and were cleaner than the traditional blast furnaces. They were very popular among mini-mill operators that recycled scrap metal and produced lower volumes of steel than what was common at the large plants.

By the late 1970s the large companies like U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel hadn’t made significant changeovers. Also, there was a geographic shift of the steel industry to the midwest away from the northeast, where it was less expensive to ship products and closer to their target markets than the Northeast.

In either 1948 or 1949 the U.S. imported more steel than it exported for the first time. That trend never reversed itself, but the American industry still had a lock pretty much on the domestic market. They could afford to maintain their ways and still make a handsome profit. As foreign steel became more abundant and as quality improved the domestic market turned more and more towards foreign sources for steel.

By the time the industry got serious about changing over the marketplace and the industry itself had changed so much it was too little too late for them.

ChadS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top